Covid in Norway: A Change of Heart as State Broadcaster NRK Discusses modRNA Vaxx Injuries?
Quite unlikely, but at least we learn: litigation is in the works as journos and public health officials continue to lie about the Covid jabs
Not much new under the Northern sun, but at least some attention is afforded to vaxx injured people.
As always, translation and emphases mine, as are the bottom lines.
Nurse Claims She Fell Ill After Getting Vaccinated—No Compensation
Nurse ‘Linda’ fell ill just after she had taken the corona vaccine, and she is convinced that it was due to the vaccine: ‘I probably won't be taking any more vaccinations!’
By Bjørn Atle Gildestad, NRK, 12 Oct. 2023 [source]
‘Linda’ is a nurse and researcher. Or rather, she was a nurse and researcher. She fell ill shortly after taking the coronavirus vaccine, and is convinced that the vaccine made her ill.
But the Norwegian Patient Injury Compensation scheme (orig. Norsk Pasientskadeerstatning, or NPE) rejects that the vaccine was what caused her illness.
Several Nurses Receive Rejections [by NPE]
‘I would never have believed that things could change like this from one week to the next’, says ‘Linda’ when we meet her.
Uncertain about the future, and whether she will apply for a new job again, she does not want to use her real name.
She is one of many [nurses] who are now asking the Norwegian Nurses' Association for help in pursuing a compensation litigation. Like her, several other colleagues are convinced that they are victims of the coronavirus vaccine.
‘Linda’ believes that her impaired short-term memory, fatigue, and pain are due to the vaccine shot she received in her arm on a May day in 2021. The AstraZeneca vaccine had been phased out by then, and she was happy to take Pfizer.
[remember: AstraZeneca was ‘phased out’ due to nurses and elderly patients dying in close temporal proximity to getting these products; as per the Norwegian Institute for Public Health, or IPH, ‘vaccination with AstraZeneca put on hold…due to a death in Denmark’; needless to say, the original page has since (re)moved (archived version); here is that news item from the Norwegian Medicines Agence (orig. Legemiddelverket), all of them dated: 11 March 2021]
I had no symptoms for the first few days, but nine days later I suddenly became unwell. I was sitting in my home office in front of my computer when I lost feeling in my lips and became a little bluish.
She was taken away in an ambulance because these are symptoms of a stroke.
I was a bit disorientated, but the following days there were small haemorrhages in my skin and stabbing pains, like needle marks, all over my body. It was as if it was a seizure of some kind that started with very pulsating blood circulation.
Uncertainty About the Future
‘Linda’ doesn't know if she will ever return to the labour market. She is unsure whether she will apply for a new job again, and whether anyone will want her when she comes forward with both her illness and criticism of NPE. Therefore, she does not come forward with her own name.
[Free speech is wonderful, right? That piece alone should cause some introspection among Norwegians, but then again, I won’t hold my breath (but I will ask around at work next week to check in with ‘regular’ people…]
‘Linda’ is convinced that all this is due to the vaccine. But NPE's expert doctor rejects the idea that the vaccine can be the cause.
[I don’t mean to nit-pick here (but I do intend to be judgemental for a moment: this is extreme gaslighting—by the state broadcaster and NPE’s ‘expert doctor’ (note the singular; no second opinion by a medical professional is provided): there is a woman who suffered a stroke less than 10 days after ‘getting jabbed’—and the ‘expert doctor’ is said to ‘reject the idea’, i.e., telling a seasoned nurse that she is the only one who considers that connection between the BioNTech/Pfizer modRNA shot and the seizure; when was the last time we spoke about ‘bioethics’? (oh, right)]
In the assessment the [expert] doctor sent to NPE, he writes:
These symptoms [impaired short-term memory, fatigue, and pain, followed by a seizure] are common in the population and may have many different causes. If these non-specific symptoms persist beyond 4-6 weeks or appear later than 6 weeks after vaccination, there is currently insufficient medical evidence to conclude that the vaccine may be the cause. In this case, the aforementioned ailments cannot therefore be regarded as a consequence of the vaccination.
[remember: ‘Linda’ clearly stated above: ‘I had no symptoms for the first few days, but nine days later I suddenly became unwell’, which ended in a stroke; may I suggest to release that expert doctor’s name, disclose his financial statements, and see if there is something ‘there’?]
NPE thus rejected her claim.
The Patient Injury Act clearly states that those who have suffered losses due to patient injury are entitled to compensation when the injury is due to a vaccine.
In a ruling in 2015, the Court of Appeals stated that it is sufficient that the vaccine MAY be the cause of illness in order to receive compensation when a person has been made ill by a vaccine in a national vaccination programme, such as the coronavirus vaccination.
The threshold for meeting claims for compensation for vaccine-induced ailments should therefore be lower than in other cases.
Lawyer Kjell Inge Ambjørndalen is running several cases for nurses in collaboration with the Norwegian Nurses' Association. He claims that NPE does not care about the judgement handed down by the Court of Appeal in 2015.
Lawyer Claims NPE Ignores the Court of Appeals’ Ruling
NPE chooses to ignore the Norwegian Court of Appeals. This is the body that could have helped to make things financially better for this group. This compensation system is supposed to be a saviour for those who are unfortunate after vaccination. This is not how it works when the NPE operates in the way it does.
When asked if he is not just disagreeing with NPE, and that they may be right, Ambjørndalen replies:
No, they are not right. They don't follow the Court of Appeals’ ruling.
Vibeke Bugge, who heads the department for legal tasks and expert investigations at NPE, rejects this. She insists that those who are entitled to compensation actually receive compensation.
I want to make it clear that we do’, Bugge replies to the lawyer's claim that they have not taken the judgement of the Court of Appeals into account.
She says they read such judgements thoroughly:
This is the highest court, and we review our practice and see if there is a need to change. We are always keen to advise experts and case officers about any adjustments.
Obtaining Expert Opinions
Many of the [NPE’s] expert doctors work far away from the patient, and they are rarely in contact with the person they are assessing. ‘Linda’ reacts to the fact that a neurologist at a hospital several hundred miles away from her is assessing the case.
He does a paper examination of me, looks at what's written in various emergency room notes and doctors' notes. This may not give a complete picture of the situation. I would have thought it was important to form your own independent picture as an expert judgement.
Vibeke Bugge of NPE says she understands the desire for doctors to meet patients. But with 8,000 applications every quarter, NPE would not be able to keep case processing times short, which is also important for compensation applicants:
We have a few examples of experts who, based on documentation in individual cases, recognise that there is a need to investigate compensation applicants. Then we do it.
[oh, look, some of NPE’s ‘expert doctors’ are actually doing their evaluation properly, but ‘with 8,000 applications every quarter’—which comes down to 32,000 applications for compensation per year—NPE is overwhelmed, it seems: didn’t they prepare for the possibility of this to happen? I’ll have more on this issue below, if only it would take up too much space right here]
Lawyer Ambjørndalen is critical of the assignment these doctors are given:
I think they have not been trained by NPE on what they should answer. First and foremost, they must consider whether the explanation is medically plausible, and put it in the context of what it is possible to compare it with. They must understand the judgement that was handed down by the Court of Appeals in 2015 and, as far as possible, provide their medical input based on this.
[NRK] But many of the doctors conclude that the vaccine can hardly be the cause of the ailments?
Yes, because there is currently no medical scientific opinion on the possible consequences of this vaccine.
Vibeke Bugge at NPE is clear that the case processing is fully in line with the Patient Injury Act:
The rule of evidence that applies to vaccines is a 'may' rule. This means that we have to see whether the vaccine can be responsible for the ailments claimants say they have. We are keen to look at what medical knowledge is known today. That's what we emphasise. And it's important for me to say that if new knowledge emerges, because it does happen, we will consider whether our previous rejections are wrong.
[we’ll see about that, won’t we?]
Bottom Lines
Signs and wonders, dear readers, have happened as state broadcaster NRK published the above piece on its website. Of course, I don’t know if the article has been put into holding for a few days (or weeks) and is now no longer high up on the (otherwise quite convoluted) front page.
Now I need to address two big-ticket items.
Adverse Events in Norway
At least we now have a ‘credible’ (ahem) state broadcaster from a Nordic country discussing vaccine injury claims (allegedly) due to a modRNA product. I suppose, citing NPE’s ‘expert doctor’, we could drop the ‘allegedly’ as the stroke of ‘Linda’ happened within the timeframe (4-6 weeks after injection). For the Norwegian Patient Injury Compensation scheme, however, the fact that these modRNA products may cause strokes has been well established by mid-October 2023.
As regards the ‘emerging new knowledge’, I shall cite from the original product safety sheet by Pfizer (revised 7 Dec. 2021, i.e., after ‘Linda’ received the injection):
Based on clinical trials in humans, possible adverse effects following intravenous exposure to this compound may include: injection site pain, muscle pain, headache, fever, chills, tiredness, joint pain, abnormal redness of skin (erythema), and sleep disturbances. Serious allergic reactions, including anaphylaxis, have been reported. [p. 7]
Curiously, according to the Norwegian Medicines Agency’s own reporting (source, pp. 5-6), following the European Medicines Agency’s listing, the following symptoms are considered
(women) bleeding after menopause
fainting (syncope)
inflammation of the heart sac (pericarditis)
blood clots in the lungs
deep vein thrombosis
anaphylactic reaction
heart cramp (angina pectoris)
heart rhythm disturbance (arrhythmia)
blood clot (thrombosis)
heart muscle inflammation (myocarditis)
As of 25 Sept. 2023, the Norwegian Medicines Agency had received 251 reports of deaths in temporal proximity to administration of the BioNTech/Pfizer products, 22 after Moderna, and 6 after AstraZeneca (same source, pp. 6-7). On p. 8, we read:
We have processed 28 reports of deaths following immunisation [sic] in persons under the age of 60. Five of these of these concern deaths due to the very rare but serious side effect thrombosis with thrombocytopenia with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) after vaccination with Vaxzevria [the AstraZeneca product].
For the remaining deaths, the causal relationship with vaccination is uncertain.
Remember, at this point, the wording by the Court of Appeals as reported by NRK:
it is sufficient that the vaccine MAY be the cause of illness in order to receive compensation when a person has been made ill by a vaccine in a national vaccination programme…
I’m certainly no ‘legal expert’ (perhaps this is an advantage here), but this wording seems to be sufficient to process these claims in an expedite manner, eh?
Instead, the Norwegian Medicines Agency writes the following (p. 8):
So far, no causal link between immunisation [sic] and long-term ailments, such as fatigue or headaches has been established. Long-term usually means if the symptoms have lasted more than three months, but can vary slightly for the type of side effect.
The Norwegian Medicines Agency has processed 53 reports of suspected side effects relating to extended fatigue and 400 reports of persistent headache. The limit for long-term is set at 90 days for for fatigue and 182 days for headache.
Seizures and strokes apparently don’t fall into these categories. ‘Good’ to know, eh?
About the Patient Injury Compensation scheme…
Vibeke Bugge of the NPE claimed in the piece that they are processing ‘8,000 claims every quarter’, or some 32,000 claims per year. Yet, the NPE’s website clearly says something else:
Now, I don’t know on which reality Ms. Bugge bases her claims, but her statement is: a big, fat, stinkin’ lie. The NPE’s own disclosure shows that they may get some 8,000 claims filed in 2023 (which would still be a substantial increase of 40% relative to 2021), but there is no evidence in the public domain that comes anywhere near Bugge’s statement that they are processing ‘8,000 applications every quarter’.
If anything, payment of compensation is significantly down:
Only a mere 3.4% of these payments, by the way, were due to any ‘vaccine’-related claim (source).
Of course, one should also check the NPE’s dedicated ‘Covid vaccine’ statement (source):
I cannot for the life of me or anyone else see ‘8,000 claims every quarter’ here either.
I suppose Bjørn Atle Gildestad could have done these checks, too, before he published the above piece.
But he didn’t, hence Vibeke Bugge’s big, fat, stinkin’ lies stand.
How disgusting is this.
I sincerely hope that other vaccine-injured people will see this piece and realise: they are not alone.
That the Nurses’ Association is now involved in legal battles is also an undeniably ‘good’ development here, for that means bigger coffers to sustain the ensuing court case(s).
Judging from these lines, I suppose that one or more (class action) suits are eventually ending up in court, which means: depositions, hopefully of the likes of Camilla Stoltenberg (former Director of the Institute of Public Health), her ‘top’ epidemiologist Preben Aavitsland, and Steinar Madsen (over at the Medicines Agency), discovery in a court of law, and consequences.
Personally, I suspect that at some point something will be ‘discovered’ (legally speaking), but that no-one will be held responsible because ‘no-one could know back then’.
All in all, a shameful episode of and for public health, but I doubt that anything will change in terms of state institutions or personal accountability.
I do think, though, that trust has been lost, and once nursing staff grows (even more) wary of doctors and guidelines, I suspect many more complaints etc. will appear in the future.
None of this will help ‘Linda’ or other vaxx-injured people, though. We must never forget what happened and continue to call them out.
I find this almost universal denial that any injury can have anything to do with the vaccination so perverse.
I studied nutritional therapy and during my training we were taught to take an extensive history from a client. This began before conception with grandparents and parents health. Went through birth and childhood and everything was considered relevant - diet, where one lived, childhood vaccinations etc. right up to the present day. This was even if a client were in their 60s+. I was taught that anything could be relevant and that ´could’ was so important. It needed to be considered and thought about. Now a vaccination - and a novel technology at that - taken a matter of weeks ago is instantly dismissed and not given a second thought as the cause of someone’s illness.
Wake me up when we’ve come to our senses please.